Gill v. Kuhn
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In Error.. IN the District Court for the city and county of Philadelphia, William Bill, Benjamin Canonge, and Peter A. Canonge, lately trading under the firm of Gill, Canonge Co. brought an action for the use of their assignees, against George K. Kuhn, in which they declared in assumpsit for goods sold and delivered, on a quantum valebant, and on an account stated. 1 1 On the trial they gave in evidence, that the defendant had admitted the correctness of the charges, both on…
Read the full summary
In Error.. IN the District Court for the city and county of Philadelphia, William Bill, Benjamin Canonge, and Peter A. Canonge, lately trading under the firm of Gill, Canonge Co. brought an action for the use of their assignees, against George K. Kuhn, in which they declared in assumpsit for goods sold and delivered, on a quantum valebant, and on an account stated. 1 1 On the trial they gave in evidence, that the defendant had admitted the correctness of the charges, both on the credit and debit side of an account copied from the ledcrer hereafter . . r ° mentioned, in which a balance of 411…
1Opinion of the CourtGibson, J.
This is a plain case. The plaintiffs, trading under the firm of Gill, Ccinonge if Co., enter into articles with Peter Kuhn, an auctioneer, in which the parties agree to follow their several occupations in concert, in the same establishment, but without any co-partnership, which it is expressly agreed shall not exist. The plaintiffs are to furnish 10,000 dollars, free of interest, for the purpose of making advances on goods deposited for sale, and also whatever additional ■ sum may be necessary to carry on the business, but for all above the 10,000 dollars they are to be allowed interest. The…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Chisholm v. CowlesSupreme Court of Alabama · 1868